(1.) This application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the order dated September 27, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Asansol in Misc. Appeal No.30 of 2006 arising out of an order no.31 dated October 19, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Second Court, Asansol in Title Suit No.114 of 2005. The short fact is that the plaintiff/petitioner herein instituted a title suit being T. S. No.114 of 2005 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Second Court, Asansol against the opposite parties herein seeking for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to be maintained by the defendant no.1 to the extent of 50% of her monthly salary so long as she remains alive, a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendant nos.2 to 5 to deduct 50% of the monthly salary of the defendant no.1 in each month and to pay the same to the plaintiff so long as she remains alive and other reliefs. In that suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. for passing interim reliefs restraining the defendant nos.2 to 5 from realizing the 50% of the monthly salary of the defendant no.1 in favour of the plaintiff. The learned Trial Judge passed an ad interim order of injunction. The defendant no.1 contested the suit and upon hearing both the sides, the learned Trial Judge disposed of the application for temporary injunction directing the defendant nos.2 to 5 not to release 50% of the total monthly salary of the defendant no.1. Being aggrieved by such order, the defendant no.1 preferred a misc. appeal being Misc. Appeal No.30 of 2006 which was disposed of by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Asansol holding, inter alia, that without taking into evidence, mandatory injunction cannot be considered and so he set aside the impugned order. Being aggrieved by such orders, the plaintiff/petitioner has preferred this revisional application. Now, the point that emerges for decision is whether the impugned order should be sustained.
(2.) Upon hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that admittedly, one Dwija Das Mukherjee was an employee of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. But, unfortunately he died on October 10, 1995 leaving the plaintiff has his sole legally married wife, his only son, Saibal Mukherjee and his mother Smt. Shyama Sundari Mukherjee. The concerned authority of the M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. was pleased to extend their hands of cooperation by providing an employment to the son of the deceased employee on compassionate ground as per rules prevalent in the said authority. Accordingly, Saibal Mukherjee was appointed and he maintained the dependent family members of the deceased employee. The said son Saibal Mukherjee was the only bread earner of the family. He was married to the defendant no.1 on December 13, 1999. After marriage, the defendant no.1 was admitted to Raniganj Girls College wherefrom she obtained her B.A. degree and in all such days, the plaintiff looked after her.
(3.) The said son died on July 16, 2000 leaving behind his mother, the defendant no.1 and his grandmother, Smt. Shyama Sundari Mukherjee. Then the concerned authority extended their hands of cooperation by providing an employment to the defendant no.1. At that time, the defendant no.1 had to executed an instrument whereby she undertook to look after the dependent family members of the said Saibal Mukherjee (deceased). She also undertook that in case of not maintaining the said dependent family members of the deceased, the concerned authority might deduct 50% from her monthly salary for maintenance of the dependent members of the family and for that reason the other dependent members also gave their no objection for giving an employment to the defendant no.1. Thereafter the defendant no.1 got an employment as security guard and later on, she was regularised as a lady security guard in the M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. at Santoria.